Category Archives: Health Law

Most – if not all – employers are aware that both federal and state laws preclude employment discrimination based upon the race or national origin of an employee, and know that illegal activity can include both discriminatory actions and biased statements. Most employers, however, are unaware that certain of those laws also preclude discrimination by … Continue Reading

This article was written by Carolyn E. Sieve (Of Counsel in the Orange County office of Ogletree Deakins) and Robert R. Roginson (Shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins). On August 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil reinstated the … Continue Reading

This post was written by Ogletree Deakins attorneys, Jeanne E. Floyd (Of Counsel, Richmond Office), and Ruth Anne Collins Michels (Shareholder, Atlanta Office), and was published originally on the firm’s website on April 21, 2015. For some time, employers have faced uncertainty about the status of their wellness programs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While the … Continue Reading

Concerns related to the Ebola outbreak are increasing on the part of both employers and employees in the U.S.. While the outbreak is most active in the West African nations of Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, there has been at least one confirmed case in the United States. The key to preventing the spread … Continue Reading

Like many employers, Hills and Dales General Hospital’s employee policies included provisions prohibiting “negative comments” about fellow team members, and precluded engaging in “negativity or gossip.” The policies further included a requirement to represent the hospital within the community “in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity.” Recently, a three-member panel of the National … Continue Reading

The increased use of staffing agencies to place employees into the workforce has led to a growing number of court decisions regarding the responsibility of such agencies for the actions of the individuals placed. Recently, a California Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of a staffing agency sued by an individual whose drinking … Continue Reading

California’s Supreme Court has ruled that a physician who reported concerns related to patient treatment and subsequently was fired did not have to first seek and obtain a mandamus judgment setting aside the hospital’s decision before suing the hospital in state court. Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, Supreme Court of California, No. S205568, February … Continue Reading

In gender discrimination cases under Title VII, a jury can award back pay and front pay, but also can award compensatory damages if it believes that an employee was harmed emotionally or psychologically by the alleged harassment or hostile work environment. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a $1.6 Million damages award … Continue Reading

As the first anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act approaches on March 23, five district courts have issued final judgments on the issue of whether the Act itself is constitutional. The score is 3-2 in the federal government’s favor, but all five cases are on appeal at this time. The principal issue in those cases … Continue Reading

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a nursing home’s policy of complying with patients’ wishes to be treated only by white health care workers can form the basis of a racially hostile work environment for non-white employees. Chaney v. Plainfield, 7th Cir., No. 09-3661, 7/20/10. Brenda Chaney was employed as certified … Continue Reading

It is generally understood that employees can bring claims for hostile environment, wrongful termination, or even “constructive discharge” – where an employee claims that an employer made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. What is less clearly understood is the extent of the economic damages for which a … Continue Reading

A medical intern who misdiagnosed patients (including mistakenly identifying a patient as deceased), prescribed inappropriate medications or incorrect dosages, and who was “extremely argumentative” with his supervisors and co-workers was unable to perform the essential functions of his job and therefore, according to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was not a qualified individual … Continue Reading

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first major federal statute to focus on the rights of individuals with medical impairments. Section 504 of the Act creates a private right of action for individuals claiming to have been discriminated against in any “program or activity” receiving federal financial assistance. Courts have included federally funded employment … Continue Reading

If so, you’ve done the following things:  Created a pandemic flu plan and educated your employees on that plan;  Have become aware of current CDC recommendations, and will stay alert for upgrades;  Reviewed and (if necessary) revised attendance policies;  Educated yourself on confidentiality issues and concerns;  Checked with HR or … Continue Reading

Drawing a distinction between picketing and striking, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a New York health clinic unlawfully fired five employees for joining a picket line, even though the picketing itself was an unfair labor practice by the union. Civil Serv. Employees Assn. Local 1000 v. NLRB, 2d Circ., No. … Continue Reading

An employee alleging a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must file a complaint within 90 days from the date of that alleged violation. That 90-day period begins to run from the date on which the complainant knows or reasonably should know that the complained-of act has occurred. In whistleblower cases under SOX, the 90-day … Continue Reading

About Maria

Maria Greco Danaher is a shareholder in the Pittsburgh office of the national law firm of Ogletree Deakins, and regularly represents and counsels companies in employment related matters.